twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
It's not an opinion; it's a rationalization. It's how you justify feeling "better" than all those expert "sell outs".
Last edited:
Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr
- Thread starter chrismohr
- Start date
- Status
It's not an opinion; it's a rationalization. It's how you justify feeling "better" than all those expert "sell outs".
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
mrkinnies, I've been traveling for several days, finally had a chance to sit down an check your responses to my last post as well as those of others.
You attempted to dodge most of my post in reference to the complete absence of peer-reviewed engineering papers addressing the theories you propose. This absence still remains unexplained and unaddressed by you.
I will take your inability to respond directly as an admission that there is NOT A shred of professional, peer-reviewed science to back up your claims. Else you would have provided it quickly, I suspect.
This is very damaging to your credibility, because it seems all you bring to the table are the same tired truther arguments from incredulity, bare assertions and various logical fallacies.
Leaving that failure, I'll just comment on your rather desperate reliance on the concept of 'symmetry' in the WTC 7 collapse as some kind of pseudo-engineering proof of CD.
Firstly, you have not established, with any reference to controlled demolition literature, professional testimony or otherwise, that 'symmetry' is actually any kind of metric that can be usefully applied to a building collapse in aid of determining whether a controlled demolition occurred or not.
It appears that the word 'symmetry' is being wielded as a term of obfuscation, or as a 'magic' property to trump any other discussion or evidence available.
The main confidence that competent observers would have that your use of this word is meaningless lies in the fact that many real controlled demolitions are not symmetrical at all. Depending on the structure, demolition engineers will deliberately cause sections to fail first, walls to implode in certain directions etc... but clearly symmetry is not a necessary component of this.
Further, your attempt to use a tiny portion of the 2008 NIST report on WTC 7 in support of your argument is ludicrous, in light of what the report actually says about the failures, and that it specifically posits a progressive, highly asymmetrical internal collapse leading to the final global collapse.
I believe you've even referred glibly to the collapse of the E Penthouse as if there were no significance to the overall collapse. Now that's just bizarre, since you claim to have read the report.
In essence, you quotemine the report to the point where its observations are contradicted and distorted. One thing that an honest reader of the report will surely see; that certain aspects of the collapse were highly asymmetrical, and others were almost symmetrical.
Again, while interesting, it tells you absolutely nothing about the relevance of high explosives to this collapse, and you, as the arguer of CD theory in WTC 7's collapse, have offered nothing further.
Apparently you need to be reminded AGAIN that you are proposing some kind of never-before-seen technique whereby explosives are used throughout the course of several hours, whilst random fires are raging on various floors, to 'weaken' key structure in preparation for a final command to bring the building down at about 5:20pm!!!
Nevermind you haven't got a technical leg to stand on regarding the first part, having been unable to cite ANY professional CD engineer who has published a thorough, documented paper in support (and thus relying only on your unqualified judgement), but with regard to the proposed 'final command' required by your theory, YOU CANNOT PROVIDE A SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT THIS IN FACT HAPPENED!!!!!
You lack:
1) Explosive sounds at the time you require the supports at 'all four corners' of the building to be destroyed
2) Any visual evidence of such required explosions or 'squibs' at the necessary floors (which of course you haven't even discussed intelligently)
3) Any technical backing that this would even be possible
To me, as a skeptic, your 'symmetry' argument is a giant red herring, just as 'freefall = CD' is. Neither concept has any actual technical backing from the engineering and controlled demolition literature or professional journals. These terms are no more than catchy, sciencey-sounding labels which perhaps can persuade the uneducated or casual observer.
But you'll have to do much, much better than this to persuade those will real expertise and interest in the subject. I predict you haven't got even a sliver of hope in doing this, and as such your opinions will remain confined to obscure internet forums.
Best of luck though - I grant you that 'even a stopped clock is right twice a day', so who knows? You may actually be correct once in a while.
You attempted to dodge most of my post in reference to the complete absence of peer-reviewed engineering papers addressing the theories you propose. This absence still remains unexplained and unaddressed by you.
I will take your inability to respond directly as an admission that there is NOT A shred of professional, peer-reviewed science to back up your claims. Else you would have provided it quickly, I suspect.
This is very damaging to your credibility, because it seems all you bring to the table are the same tired truther arguments from incredulity, bare assertions and various logical fallacies.
Leaving that failure, I'll just comment on your rather desperate reliance on the concept of 'symmetry' in the WTC 7 collapse as some kind of pseudo-engineering proof of CD.
Firstly, you have not established, with any reference to controlled demolition literature, professional testimony or otherwise, that 'symmetry' is actually any kind of metric that can be usefully applied to a building collapse in aid of determining whether a controlled demolition occurred or not.
It appears that the word 'symmetry' is being wielded as a term of obfuscation, or as a 'magic' property to trump any other discussion or evidence available.
The main confidence that competent observers would have that your use of this word is meaningless lies in the fact that many real controlled demolitions are not symmetrical at all. Depending on the structure, demolition engineers will deliberately cause sections to fail first, walls to implode in certain directions etc... but clearly symmetry is not a necessary component of this.
Further, your attempt to use a tiny portion of the 2008 NIST report on WTC 7 in support of your argument is ludicrous, in light of what the report actually says about the failures, and that it specifically posits a progressive, highly asymmetrical internal collapse leading to the final global collapse.
I believe you've even referred glibly to the collapse of the E Penthouse as if there were no significance to the overall collapse. Now that's just bizarre, since you claim to have read the report.
In essence, you quotemine the report to the point where its observations are contradicted and distorted. One thing that an honest reader of the report will surely see; that certain aspects of the collapse were highly asymmetrical, and others were almost symmetrical.
Again, while interesting, it tells you absolutely nothing about the relevance of high explosives to this collapse, and you, as the arguer of CD theory in WTC 7's collapse, have offered nothing further.
Apparently you need to be reminded AGAIN that you are proposing some kind of never-before-seen technique whereby explosives are used throughout the course of several hours, whilst random fires are raging on various floors, to 'weaken' key structure in preparation for a final command to bring the building down at about 5:20pm!!!
Nevermind you haven't got a technical leg to stand on regarding the first part, having been unable to cite ANY professional CD engineer who has published a thorough, documented paper in support (and thus relying only on your unqualified judgement), but with regard to the proposed 'final command' required by your theory, YOU CANNOT PROVIDE A SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT THIS IN FACT HAPPENED!!!!!
You lack:
1) Explosive sounds at the time you require the supports at 'all four corners' of the building to be destroyed
2) Any visual evidence of such required explosions or 'squibs' at the necessary floors (which of course you haven't even discussed intelligently)
3) Any technical backing that this would even be possible
To me, as a skeptic, your 'symmetry' argument is a giant red herring, just as 'freefall = CD' is. Neither concept has any actual technical backing from the engineering and controlled demolition literature or professional journals. These terms are no more than catchy, sciencey-sounding labels which perhaps can persuade the uneducated or casual observer.
But you'll have to do much, much better than this to persuade those will real expertise and interest in the subject. I predict you haven't got even a sliver of hope in doing this, and as such your opinions will remain confined to obscure internet forums.
Best of luck though - I grant you that 'even a stopped clock is right twice a day', so who knows? You may actually be correct once in a while.
Last edited:
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Well, alienentity, according to mrkinnies, all the experts on Earth are either idiots, secretly agree with him but are afraid to say it, have sold out to The Mantm, or in on it.
Nobody's going to convince somebody who thinks like that with all the logic and science in the world.
Nobody's going to convince somebody who thinks like that with all the logic and science in the world.
Last edited:
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
I note also that mrkinnies moved the goalposts quite substantially with regard to the 'not quite straight down' fall of WTC 7. While initially he claimed that the whole building moved straight down, he was forced to allow that in fact it leaned over as it fell.
He now claims that this is expected, even though it directly contradicts his first claim. This is not convincing to me. Clearly the building did not fall straight down, all the way to the ground, as he and many other truthers claim.
Using a few words from NIST does not help him, either, partly because NIST is not the final authority on everything related to WTC 7 (there are many ways to corroborate the mainstream consensus without relying on NIST), and partly because NIST doesn't actually use the magic word 'symmetry'.
Not that I blame mrkinnies - after all, if I were trying to undermine a valid report, I'd use exactly the same technique, playing semantic games and distracting from the meat of it. The real question is why I would ever want to play such a game of deception? Certainly not to find the truth, or uncover the facts of something!
Whatever mrkinnies is doing, it isn't about uncovering the truth. That much is crystal-clear to me.
He now claims that this is expected, even though it directly contradicts his first claim. This is not convincing to me. Clearly the building did not fall straight down, all the way to the ground, as he and many other truthers claim.
Using a few words from NIST does not help him, either, partly because NIST is not the final authority on everything related to WTC 7 (there are many ways to corroborate the mainstream consensus without relying on NIST), and partly because NIST doesn't actually use the magic word 'symmetry'.
Not that I blame mrkinnies - after all, if I were trying to undermine a valid report, I'd use exactly the same technique, playing semantic games and distracting from the meat of it. The real question is why I would ever want to play such a game of deception? Certainly not to find the truth, or uncover the facts of something!
Whatever mrkinnies is doing, it isn't about uncovering the truth. That much is crystal-clear to me.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
Lacking. The Philadelphia fire raged for 18 hours and didn't collapse. 75k a year is peanuts. I made that in the 80's.
It was on the same topic but about two different scenarios - and here you are claiming intelligence!
First you asked this..."You think the structure should stay intact as it crashes through the building below and after it impacts the ground below then"
This implies the building is falling through itself - no mention of rotation here.
Second you asked this..."Then why did you state that the building will be at 90 degrees if the ground stopped it?"
Your question here refers to another conversation I had with Dave Rogers about the general principles of rotation. I wasn't talking about buildings crashing into each other at this point but rotating freely.
Nice twist by you though yet proves nothing other than you can twist meanings. Dave Rogers spent all day yesterday trying to do the same thing. What is it with you guys?
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 24,133
And you completely missed the point. Which was that the building would have collapsed if the fires were not fought. And you are misunderstanding the point of fuel which started multiple fires on multiple wires in the twins. In WTC7 it was falling debris which did the same thing.
Read this thread. If you think that organization was in error then you should contact them.
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 24,133
"I believe that the NIST report is a responsible attempt to find the cause of the failure, however there are many questions that are not answered in any detail and several of these questions are already on the discussion forum. I think that with a responsible dialog and debate that the NIST report can be much better and clearer than it is in the current form.
However, that being said, I would like to be clear that I see no credibilty whatsoever in the 911 truth movement and I believe, like the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures at the WTC ( WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. I have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 truth movement presents and I cannot see any evidence of a controlled demolition. Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views."
David Scott - Council on Tall Buildings & Urban Habitats Chairman
And by the way. The CTBUH offered actual scientific criticism of the Draft NIST report on WTC7. You can read them here.
However, that being said, I would like to be clear that I see no credibilty whatsoever in the 911 truth movement and I believe, like the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures at the WTC ( WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. I have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 truth movement presents and I cannot see any evidence of a controlled demolition. Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views."
David Scott - Council on Tall Buildings & Urban Habitats Chairman
And by the way. The CTBUH offered actual scientific criticism of the Draft NIST report on WTC7. You can read them here.
Last edited:
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Yea, but he's just saying that because he'd need to change his whole belief system to actually "see" the evidence. Until then, he's just content to be a sheep
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
Two problems with this argument.
A) it was a single storey building and they don't require to be fireproofed. I maybe wrong here as I don't know the codes in place during the construction of this building but here in the UK, single storey steel structures are not fireproofed.
B) Notice the asymmetry here. Some of the walls are still standing. Why didn't the walls collapse into the hole left by the Penthouse, since it fell first?
Last edited:
I don't doubt there'd be collapse but I dispute the nature of the collapse.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
No dice, sorry. I'm not playing your "I won't tell you unless you admit I'll be right whatever I tell you" games. Either say what you have to say with confidence that it proves you right, or don't. Either way, I'm not going to tell you how I'll react to what you say when you haven't said it yet.
Incidentally, your use of the term "violently rotating" is your own personal strawman. I've never claimed any such thing.
Dave
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Except that it did cause rotation, as you've repeatedly admitted. So we know from the rotation that was observed that the columns need not have been severed simultaneously, because something did cause a rotation. And since you won't say how much rotation there should have been, then you're left with an argument that's contradicted by the very evidence you're claiming supports it.
It's getting quite bizarre, really. When you want to prove the building was a CD, you claim it didn't rotate. When you're shown the pictures proving that it did rotate, you claim it didn't rotate enough. When you're asked how much rotation would be enough, you avoid the question. Then, when the dust has cleared, you start pretending it didn't rotate again.
I think you've posted enough to make it clear that you've decided in advance what the conclusion should be, and you'll twist your interpretation of the evidence to support your conclusion in whatever way suits you from moment to moment. There's no particular reason why anyone should pay you any more attention whatsoever.
Dave
mrkinnies, I've been traveling for several days, finally had a chance to sit down an check your responses to my last post as well as those of others.
You attempted to dodge most of my post in reference to the complete absence of peer-reviewed engineering papers addressing the theories you propose. This absence still remains unexplained and unaddressed by you.
I will take your inability to respond directly as an admission that there is NOT A shred of professional, peer-reviewed science to back up your claims. Else you would have provided it quickly, I suspect.
This is very damaging to your credibility, because it seems all you bring to the table are the same tired truther arguments from incredulity, bare assertions and various logical fallacies.
Leaving that failure, I'll just comment on your rather desperate reliance on the concept of 'symmetry' in the WTC 7 collapse as some kind of pseudo-engineering proof of CD.
Firstly, you have not established, with any reference to controlled demolition literature, professional testimony or otherwise, that 'symmetry' is actually any kind of metric that can be usefully applied to a building collapse in aid of determining whether a controlled demolition occurred or not.
It appears that the word 'symmetry' is being wielded as a term of obfuscation, or as a 'magic' property to trump any other discussion or evidence available.
The main confidence that competent observers would have that your use of this word is meaningless lies in the fact that many real controlled demolitions are not symmetrical at all. Depending on the structure, demolition engineers will deliberately cause sections to fail first, walls to implode in certain directions etc... but clearly symmetry is not a necessary component of this.
Further, your attempt to use a tiny portion of the 2008 NIST report on WTC 7 in support of your argument is ludicrous, in light of what the report actually says about the failures, and that it specifically posits a progressive, highly asymmetrical internal collapse leading to the final global collapse.
I believe you've even referred glibly to the collapse of the E Penthouse as if there were no significance to the overall collapse. Now that's just bizarre, since you claim to have read the report.
In essence, you quotemine the report to the point where its observations are contradicted and distorted. One thing that an honest reader of the report will surely see; that certain aspects of the collapse were highly asymmetrical, and others were almost symmetrical.
Again, while interesting, it tells you absolutely nothing about the relevance of high explosives to this collapse, and you, as the arguer of CD theory in WTC 7's collapse, have offered nothing further.
Apparently you need to be reminded AGAIN that you are proposing some kind of never-before-seen technique whereby explosives are used throughout the course of several hours, whilst random fires are raging on various floors, to 'weaken' key structure in preparation for a final command to bring the building down at about 5:20pm!!!
Nevermind you haven't got a technical leg to stand on regarding the first part, having been unable to cite ANY professional CD engineer who has published a thorough, documented paper in support (and thus relying only on your unqualified judgement), but with regard to the proposed 'final command' required by your theory, YOU CANNOT PROVIDE A SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT THIS IN FACT HAPPENED!!!!!
You lack:
1) Explosive sounds at the time you require the supports at 'all four corners' of the building to be destroyed
2) Any visual evidence of such required explosions or 'squibs' at the necessary floors (which of course you haven't even discussed intelligently)
3) Any technical backing that this would even be possible
To me, as a skeptic, your 'symmetry' argument is a giant red herring, just as 'freefall = CD' is. Neither concept has any actual technical backing from the engineering and controlled demolition literature or professional journals. These terms are no more than catchy, sciencey-sounding labels which perhaps can persuade the uneducated or casual observer.
But you'll have to do much, much better than this to persuade those will real expertise and interest in the subject. I predict you haven't got even a sliver of hope in doing this, and as such your opinions will remain confined to obscure internet forums.
Best of luck though - I grant you that 'even a stopped clock is right twice a day', so who knows? You may actually be correct once in a while.
As usual, you pull out the debunker's fallacy, the lack of peer reviewed counter evidence. Let me remind you it took 7 years for NIST to produce an answer to WTC7 and they had access to all the data and witnesses. How many people were involved with this investigation? And where is the data they used? Oh I forgot....it's classified as secret, which suggests a cover up.
Why don't NIST release that data so others can use it?
Give it time and the paper you say is lacking will appear but just because it isn't around today doesn't prove your theory to be the right one. That's a lame excuse although I do wonder why you are here and make your YouTube videos, to distort what truthers say, if you truly believe that your theory is as sound as you say it is.
As for the issue of symmetry, global collapse was symmetrical. I have made no attempt to cover up that it wasn't perfect acknowledging the slight twists and kink in the building as it falls (downward) but other than that, the east and west sides move down at the same time as the north facade with little distortion in the horizontal plane. The action was of a single unit falling within a degree or two of vertical. You cannot argue with this. And a degree or two of rotation is insignificant when discussing whether it fell downward or not. It did. Had it rotated by 30 degrees within a second then I'd agree with you, but it was one or two degrees. Hardly a convincing piece of evidence to suggest it rotated or the action wasn't symmetrical.
When you include the collapse of the Penthouse, the debunkers argument becomes harder to resolve. How can an asymmetrical event give a symmetrical outcome? How can one part of the building fall in on itself and cause all four walls to drop at the same time such that the rest of the tower falls as a single unit downward with very very minor rotation? NIST's hypothesis is weak and their own models cannot reproduce this so why do you believe them?
Last edited:
I've answered the issue of rotation already but you fail to understand probably because you have already decided in advance what the conclusion is and cannot bear to accept that a rotation of one or two degrees from vertical is still downward.
Last edited:
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
Fire makes steel frame buildings collapse. Yes or no?
It didnt even burn for too long and the contents were normal household and office stuff. It was also fought by the fire brigade.
The low walls were concrete block walls inbetween the frame. And on the left hand side there was another building it was tied to.
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
- Status